Magnus, Robot Fighter #3 Part 2

Last time,

The answer?

And this is bad.

I hope (which is a very dangerous emotion to feel in regards to comics) the author is stopping short of literally saying these things are evil, and is just saying they’re used by evil people by tricking women and minorities into thinking they need those things and using their support to take power.

So it’s not that nonwhite nonstraight nonmen HAVE to get paid lower wages and accept a certain amount of rape and murder in their daily life…it’s just that you need to ask yourself first, “Would this inconvenience a straight white guy in any way? Any at all?” and if so, stop asking for fair wages and not getting killed until that’s been sorted out.

(Incidentally, not sure if trans people are so terrible even the evil robots hate them too or if they don’t exist. You’d think that’d be relevant in a world where robots appear to have genders, but it is not.)

If you’re new to comics, you may be feeling a foolish sense of optimism at this. Maybe the author gets that the “hero” is a racist mass murderer and the woman saying that life under robots is objectively better is mean to have a point! Maybe this isn’t a giant screed against actual tolerance wrapped up in a bunch of bullshit about how no they’re the ones being intolerant.

Haha. You poor fool.


You know, just like Vivian James.


(That last one is actually the censored version, because I’m nice like that.)

So yeah, we get another series of panels showing everyone’s shock and awe at this new event to hammer in how incredible it is and how this is all showing the truth.

And we end this with Our Hero backhanding the evil feminist in his rush to save a proper woman who just fridged herself for him.

So this is a good point to ask, perhaps repeatedly:

What the fuck is this?

My kindest guess at this point is it’s something in the general family tree of hipster irony, where the writer thinks he’s being edgy as fuck by exploring the wholly uncharted land of “what if being PC was the real evil”. If this was from a place marginally less vile than comics, I would even rank that as the most likely option.

My guess as to the most likely option, given it’s comics and they think having one black hero is oppressing white people, is that he really thinks these things are bad because they inconvenience white guys. Good nonwhiteguy people know their place is as supporting characters to Mr. Aryan, bad nonwhiteguy characters refuse to accept the world revolves around him.

If you’d like to get a glimpse into the though process, he’s given interviews. Here’s one where he shows he definitely knows the word “appropriation” but I can’t make out much more.

Join me next week for Good Woman Vs Bad Woman and what I believe is our only other two-women-talking line in the series so far (it’s about a man). Also, more Frederick Douglass whiteface.


  1. GeniusLemur says:
    You know, I think it’s impossible to look at that second panel and not realize just how stupid/inconvenient/unusable those foot-high platform/heel/boot things are.
    1. illhousen says:
      Wait, it was a leg? I thought it was some kind of futuristic melee weapon with an edge on the end.
      1. Farla says:
        In comics, that’s basically the same thing.
  2. illhousen says:
    I still can’t get over the protagonist being Spider-Man. It seriously bothers me. I mean, what’s up with it, really?

    “Incidentally, not sure if trans people are so terrible even the evil
    robots hate them too or if they don’t exist. You’d think that’d be
    relevant in a world where robots appear to have genders, but it is not.”

    Given that robot genders appear to be some kind of hologram, I am assuming for now that they can switch genders at will, or with an upgrade they can get in a local store.

    No reason to not give humans the same opportunity, especially since they are big on equality already.

    “You know, just like Vivian James.”

    I don’t, but I am morbidly curious now.

    1. guestest ever says:
      He fights robots. Spiderman fights robots too. Sometimes. That’s close enough.

      Why do robots have genders anyway? Programming them to want/need/appear to have genders is silly. What’s a robot gonna do with it, it’s not like they reproduce. It’s nothing but a dickmove to make robots with genders, it’s like you WANT them to have gender issues among themselves.
      Or the first engineer who made the first robot wanted to move on to sexbots. Probably that’s why it keeps happening in various settings with robots.

      “No reason to not give humans the same opportunity, especially since they are big on equality already.”
      That could be what pouches are for. Who knows what sort of equipment she’s carrying inside them? Perhaps changing isn’t even a thing anymore, maybe every human can swap in the appropriate bits whenever they feel like it.*
      *(this is a wrong guess)
      1. illhousen says:
        The question here, do they have gender identity, or is it just appearance? Do robots think of themselves as male/female/other?

        I can see the merit at making robots look like they have genders. Simply because humans have genders, so it makes robots look more like humans. Which is useful if they need to interact with humans often: humans would trust them more that way simply because they would appear similar to us.

        Then again, I am not sure why robots bother with holograms at this point to begin with. It’s not like they need to hide or anything. Maybe looking like humans is purely aesthetic choice.

      2. Farla says:
        Programming them to want/need/appear to have genders is silly.

        This part will actually be explained kind of neatly, although the author really doesn’t do much with it.

    2. Roarke says:
      The protagonist is SpiderMan because with great white power comes great white responsibility.
    3. Gust says:
      Uhh, vivian James is something Gamergate made up to ward off the fact that people saw through their ethics in games jurnalism as an excuse to attack women. So they drew a fake woman who agrees with them and can’t real women shut up and play like this her? And then they drew porn of her.
      I’m sorry.
      1. illhousen says:

        I’ve managed to mostly miss the whole Gamergate thing, and am I glad for it.

      2. Farla says:
        Well, in Gamergate’s defense, Vivian James was the character they got by spite-funding a group that was on bad terms with their hated enemy, to prove they weren’t misogynist.

        It took like two, three more seconds to produce the porn and the comics where she talks about how much feminism is stupid, so that wasn’t the original purpose, just the inevitable outcome.

      3. Name says:
        “saw through”

        More like the corrupt journalists themselves pretending that’s what it’s about, even though it obviously isn’t, in a cheap attempt to save themselves from scrutiny.

        Also, their mascot is literally an blonde blue-eyed palette swap of her. So much for them being for diversity.

        1. Falconix says:
          Boy, did you pick the wrong blog to go pro-GG on.
          1. Name says:
            Who said I was pro-GG? Just saying that the people who actively oppose it are generally far more harmful than them.
            1. Falconix says:
              Oh, did anyone on the pro-GG side spend Thanksgiving avoiding a PI hired by a “lawyer” on the anti side?
              1. Name says:
                Consider why somebody would be investigated by one in the first place. Seems awfully suspicious to avoid one.
              2. Socordya says:
                “Somebody is being harassed, therefore they probably deserved it”
                Seems legit
              3. Name says:
                I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
              4. Farla says:
                Because someone else paid money to harass them. Do you not know what the “private” part of “private investigator” means?
              5. Falconix says:
                Having an opinion while female?
              6. Name says:
                Yes, because that’s totally not inaccurate and intellectually dishonest at all. While we’re at it, I guess all those people complaining about Jack Thompson back in the day were just satanists who wanted to silence every single Christian.

                Or maybe, there actually is an issue regarding certain people doing poor research, coming to ridiculous conclusions and demanding outrageous things that gets most people annoyed at them.

            2. Farla says:

              Literally no one I have ever met from the playground to the internet has said games journalism is anything but a festering pot of corruption. I do not interact with any of the review sites or play games they’re relevant to, and even I know that the scores are meaningless, the text only occasionally better, and to not even bother if I’m curious about a mainstream game.

              And yet, this is Gamergate.

              1. Name says:
                August 18. Gamergate was born on the 27th or so. Nice try.

                I also like how the very beginning of it shows exactly what I mean regarding the so-called harassed people actually being just as bad if not worse. Attacking communities for depressed people is hardly very sympathetic.

              2. SpoonyViking says:
                I tend to err on the side of attributing things to stupidity instead of outright malice, so I’d go with “just very stupid”.
              3. Falconix says:
                Gamergate was named on the 27th, but the movement was fueled by the jerk who successfully sicced the internet on his ex-girlfriend and further inflamed by the outrage at Sarkeesian’s latest video.

                And let me know when the depressed people get death-threatened out of their homes and livelihood.

              4. Name says:
                You’re literally victim blaming a person whose ex raped him by her own definition of the word, simply because he spoke out about how he was treated.

                The movement was fueled by the legitimate outrage at that ex successfully siccing the internet on a community for depressed people to advertise her game, and journalists somehow rushing to her defense even when it was proven beyond all doubts.

                Let me know when somebody actually gets death threatened by GG, by the way. They’ve been making sure to stop and report anyone doing that crap, and the only one who’s done it so far was a neutral Brazilian journalist trying to fabricate a scoop. GG, on the other hand, has gotten syringes mailed to them and gotten fired due to their opponents spreading libel about them to their workplaces.

              5. SpoonyViking says:
                When a man washes the dirty laundry of a failed relationship in public, he’s not a victim, he’s a whiny sod crying out for attention.

                All the allegations about Zoe Quinn sleeping with a Kotaku journalist to gain press for “Depression Quest” have already been disproven, so why do the GamerGate people continue to use terms like “Quinnspiracy”?

              6. Name says:
                So he would be a victim if he was a woman, then? Nice sexism there.

                And no, the allegations were never disproven, it’s just that the press wasn’t specifically in the form of a review. Either way, that’s not nearly as important as the harassment that her and her ilk are subjecting people to.

              7. SpoonyViking says:
                Interesting that you chose to focus on the pronoun instead of the actual argument. But very well, I don’t have a problem with repeating myself:

                When a person washes the dirty laundry of a failed relationship in public, they’re not a victim, they’re a whiny sod crying out for attention.

                *sigh* Ok, then, can you back up those claims? Can you actually cite ANY article by any magazine or newspaper (online or not) that gave undue press to “Depression Quest”? Can you also point to any verifiable source about GamerGate “people” being harassed by Zoe Quinn, or any other female game designer / journalist?

                The sad part is that I still don’t think you’re a troll, you’re just an entitled little brat.

              8. Name says:
                Well, if you think people who talk about their abusive relationships are all whiny sods, I guess we could leave it at that.

                For the former, see any of the several articles claiming she was harassed by Wizardchan, such as this one:


                It’s been updated to show that there was no proof behind her claims, luckily, but back when it was posted, lots of people believed it and started harassing the people there and mass-upvoting the game in some disturbing “haha, lets show those disgusting misogynerds” mentality that’s just as prevalent among anti-GGers.

                For the latter, here’s one out of many examples:


                Actually, while we’re at it:

              9. SpoonyViking says:
                Well, if you think people who talk about their abusive relationships are all whiny sods, I guess we could leave it at that.

                Interesting how once again you deliberately left out important parts of what I said. Also, first you complained I was being sexist because I’d have allowed a woman to act like that; now, you’re trying to justify it because he was in an abusive relationship. So, are you going to keep moving the goalpost, all in an effort to twist things so that you can still come out “the winner” in this “debate”? (I put it in quotes because this isn’t a debate, this is an entitled, young idiot – specifically, you – acting like one.)

                As for the articles: all the first one says is that she reported instances of harassment, which weren’t confirmed by another party – so you mean to tell me no one stepped up to say they HAD been harassing her? Or that Valve simply didn’t want to get involved and investigate matters? What a shock!

                The second one is a Twitter feed of people calling this Russ Roegner out on something he apparently said… Only, it doesn’t actually say WHAT he said, so I can’t judge for myself whether he’s being fairly rebuked or if people were overreacting. So, a deliberate manipulation of information is your style, huh?

                The third one is, again, people complaining about being harassed WITHOUT ACTUALLY PROVIDING PROOF. See above regarding “deliberate manipulation of information”.

                Seriously, is this honestly your idea of a debate? You making any claims you want without having to provide context and verifiable sources? Do you honestly not realize how hypocritical you’re being?

                Oh, yes, I nearly forgot: despite your previous claims, you still haven’t provided any proof Zoe Quinn bribed journalists in any way to gain undue press for her games.

              10. Falconix says:
                Let me know when somebody actually gets death threatened by GG, by the way.

                Quinn, Sarkeesian, Jenn Frank, Brianna Wu… I could go on. Oh wait, they’re faking it, aren’t they?

                Milo got syringes, and he’s pissed off so many groups you can’t prove he got them specifically for siding with GG. And the asshole ex didn’t need libel spread when he aired his dirty laundry for all to see and kept giving the GGers info on Quinn despite going against the restraint order.

              11. Farla says:
                Oh, Falconix. Don’t you understand? Everyone on their side tells the truth and everyone against them is a well-oiled machine of lies.
              12. Name says:
                Why yes, they actually are. When you keep doing things like making claims about getting threats but refuse to actually report them, claim that your phone number’s been leaked when it’s actually a random bike store in Hawaii, and try to avoid getting investigated, it’s pretty obvious you’re not being honest. The one confirmed threat was from a Brazilian journalist, and GG were the ones who looked it up and reported it.

                By the way, would you say a woman who escaped from their abusive ex is an asshole airing their dirty laundry for warning others about them? Because it was pretty clear who the asshole in that relationship was.

                Also, a female game developer got harassed out of her job just a few hours ago. Which side was against women in gaming again? Hint: It wasn’t GG’s side behind it..

              13. Wright of Void says:
                I’d just like to point out I find it terribly ironic that Gamergate constantly accuses the social justice side of doing nothing but attacking the evils of their opponents while refusing to acknowledge the wrongdoing of their own side, then Gamergate proceeds to do the exact same thing.

                Like, yes, the social justice side has done bad things. Yes, there is journalistic corruption. But even if Quinn is a horrible abuser, that doesn’t justify what Gamergate has done to her – even her ex admits that she doesn’t deserve the harassment she’s gotten. If you want to claim the moral high ground, you need to actually practice what you preach. Get your own house in order first – and I’d like to point out that if the reasonable side of Gamergate is doing everything in their power to stop the harassment but can’t, maybe they’re not the silent majority but a vocal minority.

                The one confirmed threat was from a Brazilian journalist, and GG were the ones who looked it up and reported it.

                For instance, I see a lot of people bring this up and then steadfastly pretend the hysteria around the conspiracy theory that she was faking it never happened. Not only that, but they continue to make more conspiracy theories that all the other women being harassed are faking it, because apparently she was a freak exception and not evidence of a greater pattern. But that doesn’t matter because the SJWs do the exact same thing therefore Gamergate can do whatever they want. The lack of self-awareness is truly staggering.

              14. Name says:
                Acknowledging one’s wrongdoings is one thing, acknowledging made up wrongdoings that are part of a smear campaign is another.
                When a community mass reports any post that shows clear intent of harassment (doxxing, etc.) and mass posts to bump it off the board if the mods are asleep, it’s pretty clear the ones against harassment are in the majority.

                And no, when people post caps of being “hacked” by “/V/” and “the leader of Gamergate”, being distrustful of their claims stops being conspirational and becomes what’s rational.

                Ever heard about crying wolf? The only greater pattern here is that certain people like to claim they’re being harassed and blame GG for it despite all the evidence to the contrary.

              15. Name says:
                With that said, though, I do appreciate that you acknowledge that both sides have their share of guilt. While I maintain that it’s a necessary movement that acts for the greater good, I can admit that its origins were a bit unsavoury and agree to disagree.

                (Of course, unless people decide to get all snarky as soon as I stop replying.)

              16. Wright of Void says:
                Acknowledging one’s wrongdoings is one thing, acknowledging made up wrongdoings that are part of a smear campaign is another.

                When part of the wrongdoing is insisting something is a made-up smear campaign before it actually turned out to be true, maybe it’s time to stop using that excuse. Maybe it’s also time to stop dismissing all detractors as liars and start giving people some goodwill.

                Like, look. When I see the bad stuff the social justice people are saying, my immediate response is to say “Oh no, that’s terrible! Why are they doing that? D:” and am wracked with doubt. But with Gamergate, it’s like pulling teeth. Only…what, a dozen posts into this conversation? have you admitted that its origins – not even its current practices – were problematic. And even when people can get through the deflection tactics, there’s a good chance they’ll insist there isn’t actually anything wrong to begin with and/or that the victims of the movement are acceptable losses. But it’s totally about personal accountability.

                That disturbs me. It feels very cavalier and insincere, even if it’s not. It makes me feel like there are just fundamental differences in the way we think, which is never a good recipe for fostering compromise and resolution.

              17. Farla says:
                So it’s fine to dismiss other people’s claims of harassment and say they have a huge conspiracy to suppress the truth, but everything your group says is true, despite only one group having a history of massive lying campaigns aimed at people they disagree with. But sure, it’s those other people who have the problem crying wolf! Why oh why are all the internet mean people not dropping everything to take 4chan’s claims seriously? It’s baffling!

                For christ’s sake, you’re repeating (dishonest) party lines verbatim throughout this very conversation. I’m not speaking hypothetically about some members behaving this way, you’re exemplifying it!

              18. Name says:
                What does some random /pol/ meme have to do with GG? In case you didn’t notice, it’s kind of grown past being a 4chan thing for a long time now.

                People from all over the net are waking up to how terribly these spoiled San Francisco journalists are behaving and want to put an end to their nonsense.

                And yeah, considering they’ve literally been paying people to post negative tweets and edit the Wikipedia article about GG to be negative, I’m pretty sure the anti-GG side is the one with the massive lying campaigns. And no, there’s nothing dishonest about those lines, you simply don’t want to believe it.

              19. actonthat says:
                Okay, see that highlighted blue text in Farla’s post? That’s called sourcing, and you’re going to need to do that before anyone here takes the party lines you’re spouting seriously at all.
              20. Name says:
                A link to a Google search about some rancom /pol/ nonsense is hardly anything that can be taken seriously. But sure, have a source.


              21. actonthat says:
                Holy shit that’s terribly written.

                I have no idea what this has to do with anything. The best I can glean, some guy who edited the Wiki GG article posted an AMA on an anti-GG subreddit, and the MRAs flipped a shit and made him not edit anymore because talking with people who have opinions is a “conflict of interest.” He then funded a friend’s GFM to help them ship stuff from Japan, which is related somehow apparently. Also, surprising no one, there’s a shit ton of wank on the article’s discussion page, which is also related somehow apparently.

                Do you even know what points you’re trying to make?

              22. Farla says:
                I do!

                The non-bigot aspects of this have been taking the idea that journalists should be honest about things like “I am currently having sex with the person whose game I’m saying is the most awesome thing you’ve ever seen and deserves all of your money” and turning it into “journalists who interact with anyone ever can’t write about things!!!”

                I think it’s a nerd fallacy outgrowth where they just instinctively feel that the popular kids are all in it together to screw them over, so they assume all human interaction is against the rule. That’s what their “ethics in journalism” rallying cry is against. So yeah, talking to other people is violating journalistic ethics, and at least they’re going after people equally on this one.

                Journalists being bribed and/or threatened for good reviews continues to not be an issue ethics in journalism has anything to do with, of course.

              23. actonthat says:
                It’s certainly a reasonable outgrowth of the MRA all-or-nothing mentality (ie, you can’t be concerned with how, say, gender roles affect women as well as men you must choose and you’ve chosen wrong!!!). Either you support them with every fiber of your being or you’re some kind of stealth operative looking to sabotage them. Talking to members of the opposition in an effort to promote dialogue? YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA.

                I can’t imagine what it’s like to go through life being that needy, it must be exhausting. Though I guess all the fun stuff that comes from being a teenage white guy makes up for it.

              24. Farla says:
                I think it’s partly a manufactured thing. The purely misogynist core have had to keep shifting their goalposts for what “ethics in journalism” involves when the initial reviews-for-sex business didn’t pan out, with the outrage remaining constant despite the supposed crimes growing steadily more trivial.

                So a lot of other people get swept up in this big ball of outrage they’re sure is justified. Their insecurity with popular kids cliques might be minor normally but with the flames fanned like this in a way designed to play on those feelings… Add enough misogyny to be certain girls get special treatment for being girls, and it’s easy.

                I know a seemingly levelheaded person has been posting various essays on this without seeming to notice that every essay the “real” reason for Gamergate and the “real” crime that set it off and the “correct” response to Gamergate that proves the victims are at fault are all completely different despite the movement and rhetoric remaining constant.

              25. Wright of Void says:
                Talking to members of the opposition in an effort to promote dialogue? YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA.

                In fairness, the anti-GG side does that too.

                But yes.

              26. actonthat says:
                I mean, that’s incredibly shitty. If I ever saw someone do it I would tell them so. But no one is being driven from their homes by anti-GG crusaders. It’s hard to call one instance of online bullying equivalent to the GG campaign of harassment against anyone who dares defy them and/or be female.
              27. Farla says:
                Eh, it’s a difference of so many magnitudes. I mean, look at just the final one – it’s wrong that people told her she shouldn’t talk to the Gamergate people on Reddit. But “harass her and accuse her of “encouraging a sexist movement” until she eventually deleted her Twitter account and all her Reddit posts” is a far cry from “doxxing with graphic description of raping her to death”.

                Add that to the fact Anonymous loves false flag operations, and we’re left with “some of the people saying they’re attacked are real people, and of them, some subset were attacked for supporting the Gamergate movement rather than by Gamergaters to prove the movement’s being attacked”. This number is somewhere between 99% and 1%. Of that, none of it seems to be on the level of Gamergate’s worse threats and doxxings of their opponents.

                So people on the internet continue to be generally shitty, but Gamergate continues to be reviled by those people for going beyond the pale.

              28. Farla says:
                whose ex raped him by her own definition of the word,

                Can I just say it’s weird you guys all use the exact same phrase? It’s never that she actually raped him or didn’t, and seems like your focus is entirely on her being a hypocrite and not, you know, rape.

              29. Farla says:
                Guys you’re arguing with someone who responded to the exact IRC log Gamergate themselves released that goes up to Sept 6th with “but what does that have to do with Gamergate which started at a date between the start and end dates of the chat log”?

                They’re either trolling you or to stupid to live. No idea which, given, you know, Gamergate.

              30. Name says:
                To be fair, the log didn’t load properly at first (it only went up to Aug 25 or so for me), but even so, you’re using a bunch of random people on a relatively obscure IRC chat as evidence of an entire movement, while ignoring the countless cases of inflammatory remarks and outright harassment that have come from gaming journalists and their supporters.
              31. Farla says:
                It’s funny how showing existing 4chan behavior in the leadup to Gamergate is irrelevant because it only matters on precise dates, but the timing of those horrible “inflammatory remarks” doesn’t matter.

                Right now the best you have going is “After we threw shit at them for a while, some of them started throwing shit back! Why are you still accusing us of throwing shit?”

              32. Name says:
                Except that they’re the ones who have been throwing shit all this time, then pretending to be victims when told to stop.
              33. Wright of Void says:
                Attacking communities for depressed people is hardly very sympathetic.

                “But they’re doing it too” is not a legitimate excuse for bad behavior. This isn’t kindergarten.

          2. actonthat says:
            I actually considered that this was Speturion whatever using a sockpuppet, because seriously who else is this dumb, but our dear guest was unfortunately taught how to use a proxy to avoid being blamed for harassing women so the world may never know.
            1. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
              Wow. Attacking me a conversation I’m not even in. Keep it classy.
              1. actonthat says:
                You say this as though my feelings re: your continued presence here are some secret and I should be like, “Oh no total misunderstanding you’re so cool!!” I’ve been about as clear as it’s possible to be that I think you’re a bigot and I don’t get why you come here. I feel this way about Anon here as well. I was being hopeful and seeing if it was maybe one dumb person instead of two considering you’d commented on the post already. Results were inconclusive.
        2. Farla says:
          Also, their mascot is literally an blonde blue-eyed palette swap of her. So much for them being for diversity.

          Oh no they made a white girl from a white girl.

    4. Farla says:
      Given that robot genders appear to be some kind of hologram, I am assuming for now that they can switch genders at will, or with an upgrade they can get in a local store.

      I’m not sure if it’s a hologram or if it’s fake flesh and his robot-senses are letting him see the underlying mechanisms. Either way, an upcoming issue will explain robots only upgrade by will of the evil church, which suggests assigned genders.

      1. illhousen says:
        Unless the ability to change genders is build-in and doesn’t require external upgrades.

        Though yeah, synthetic flesh puts a dumper on that theory.

        1. Farla says:
          Like I said, not sure it’s physical or not, could be holograms.

          I’ll keep an eye out for any dead robots losing their skin.

  3. Hmm says:
    So I guess even in this fictional robot utopia of perfect equality it’s still impossible to have less than seven sexual assaults? I mean, I get that seven out of a million or whatever is a really low rate but… why can’t that also be zero? Is there any reason why that can’t also be zero?
    1. Roarke says:
      As long as there is a non-zero human population, there will be a minimum of seven sexual assaults per year. It’s that or wipe us out completely.

      I have a theory on this, in all seriousness: The sexual assaults were committed by “robot fighters” like Magnus. In his past weird dreamworld, he had a wife. Farla has told us that he meets someone who looks like her. I’m going to add two and two here and speculate that he tries to rape her. So seven robot fighters = seven sexual assaults per year.

      1. illhousen says:
        Wouldn’t they commit hate crimes too, though? Against robots?
        1. Roarke says:
          Presumably she was specifying human-human crimes, rather than human-robot, which are probably categorized differently. I’m guessing violations of the Three Codes are in their own separate category – terrorism.
      2. Farla says:
        What’s sad is you are very, very close. COMICS.
    2. Farla says:
      In fairness, we don’t know how long this has been running, so the number could be dropping over time. There’s also “escaped” humans living underground who utterly hate the surface humans, which could be the real cause.
  4. Roarke says:
    I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
  5. Anonymous says:
    okay, but if violence is so obscure, how come her job is “human hunter”?
    1. Roarke says:
      I think you’re referring to the line where people have to look up “genocide.”

      Genocide isn’t like normal violence. The concept of a calculated, concerted attempt to wipe a group of people out based on ethnic/religious standards is pretty far removed from your everyday violence. I’m guessing that the people in this society aren’t really identifying by race/creed strongly enough to think “kill all X” is a viable solution to being cut off by X on the freeway. I mean, there are no hate crimes, so it’s reasonable to believe people are barely aware of genocide as a concept.

      So you can still have regular violence and law enforcement and no concurrent understanding of genocide.

    2. illhousen says:
      She is a hunter who is a human.

      Normally she hunts ducks.

      1. Roarke says:
        Yes, the Great North Am Duck, highly sought after for its unique flavor. Like all North Am wildlife, the Great North Am Ducks, or GNAD’s, are 100% Bechdel approved.
        1. illhousen says:
          Bechdel’s head, preserved in the North AM Head Aquarium, did indeed taste Great North AM Duck and was pleased.
          1. Roarke says:
            So I checked out “Iris Zero” and goddamn, it was good. Adorable and sad and heartwarming.
            1. illhousen says:
              It’s a recommendation, I take it? I may check it out, I think I’ve heard some good things about it.
              1. Roarke says:
                I could have sworn you were the one to recommend it to Farla on some post or another.
              2. illhousen says:
                Given that I didn’t read it, it is unlikely.

                You may mixed it up with Fate/Zero or Familiar of Zero, fanfic of which I recommended to you (and to Farla at some point in the past).

                Though I don’t recommend reading FoZ.

              3. Roarke says:
                Oh. Well, fuck it! Read Iris Zero.
    3. Farla says:
      I think it’s pretty much entirely dealing with these terrorists and maybe some of the rogue free humans.

      Also, it’s not like she could hunt evil robots – she can’t harm or disobey a robot, remember?

  6. SpoonyViking says:
    I hope (which is a very dangerous emotion to feel in regards to comics) the author is stopping short of literally saying these things are evil, and is just saying they’re used by evil people by tricking women and minorities into thinking they need those things and using their support to take power.

    I think we can be a little more charitable and assume he’s saying “people who choose security over freedom deserve neither”, instead of something specifically geared towards women and minorities.
    That said, it really doesn’t excuse the awful writing. “Good intentions” don’t deserve cookies.

    1. SoxyOutfoxing says:
      I don’t know if “People who value a safe society over their right to do whatever they want to deserve to be stripped of both those things” is actually a message with good intentions, but that doesn’t matter.

      Because I doubt this author has a game plan detailed enough to include “What are you trying say with this story?” He’s just flailing around trying to mash actual oppression into his own sense that he’s being oppressed because people have started criticising the shitty way he writes about women. It’s geared to women and minorities in that, if only people would let comics go back to ignoring those people at their whim, then no one would have been forced to write a story about how wrong it is that people are asking for basic decency, and then when you don’t provide it they call you a bad person and that makes you feel vaguely guilty, SO THEY ARE FORCING YOU TO NOT BE A SEXIST RACIST WITH THEIR EVIL EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS AN EVIL ROBOTIC DYSTOPIA BECAUSE STRAIGHT WHITE CIS MEN WERE HAVING A GOOD TIME AND NOW OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE AN EQUALLY GOOD TIME.

      The author of this garbage is not clear-headed enough to have a message that even approaches making sense, unless you think “Won’t someone think of the oppressors and how they’re not allowed to draw gigantic boobs anymore except for how they are and do but now there’s a slight chance that someone might point out they don’t think that’s rad in all the ways” is a message that makes sense.

      1. SpoonyViking says:
        I do think “should we give up our civil liberties for safety” is a good thing to debate, but I agree that this writer isn’t good enough to pull it off. Actually, he’s a terrible writer, period.

        But I don’t think this is a reaction to feminism or anything; that would imply a conscious effort. I think the problem is that the writer is simply aping typical super hero tropes without any critical thinking.

        For instance, why does Magnus behave like a mass murderer without being called on it by the story? Because we “know” he’s the good guy and the robots are the bad guys, and that’s what good guys do in a super hero comic – they beat up the bad guys, and since they’re robots, he can tear them to pieces without any problems.

        It’s a horrific message, of course, but that’s how super hero comics have traditionally worked for a long time, and the writer’s just not skilled enough (or critical enough) to make it work (for instance, even Marvel and DC pay at least lip service to the notion that self-aware androids like the Vision or the Red Tornado are living beings just as much as Captain America or Superman).

        1. Ember says:
          “But I don’t think this is a reaction to feminism or anything”

          He called out the Bechdel test by name. It’s at least in part a reaction to feminism. Half-assed reactionism doesn’t actually require that much thought.

          1. SpoonyViking says:
            Hmmm… Point.
        2. Farla says:
          I do think “should we give up our civil liberties for safety” is a good thing to debate

          The problem is it can be tricky to decide what liberties are. Is “not getting killed for showing up to vote” liberty or safety?

          That’s why having this be White Guy vs the world is such a terrible idea. White Guys historically had a bunch of liberties other people didn’t, and when the government tried giving some of those liberties to other people, ended up at one point needing the National Guard to let those other people use the same liberties. So historically, some people had to give up some of their liberties at gunpoint to let other people have safety to use their liberties.

          1. Ember says:
            Right: there’s a certain gray area where safety IS liberty. For example, women in this country and era are effectively living under a curfew because we’re *that terrified* to go out alone at night. A year with seven sexual assaults would be like having that curfew lifted.
            1. Roarke says:
              To say nothing of the racially-divided neighborhoods that still put invisible lines on our maps that can be fatal to cross. Safety and freedom go hand-in-hand if those lines (or rather, the need for them) are removed.
          2. SpoonyViking says:
            Eh, I don’t think any single person can give you THE answer; it’s something that has to be decided by society as a whole, and as such, is liable to change over time.
    2. Farla says:
      instead of something specifically geared towards women and minorities.

      Thing is, he didn’t have to specify sexual assault, and he goes on to have her talking about pay equality for minorities (in a world where humans are basically pets and this shouldn’t even be an issue that means anything to them). The speech is tailored to be the things women and minorities complain about. If it was meant to be everybody, it’d be just “seven assaults, zero murders, full employment with two weeks vacation, good health care plan”. Nothing she says is a temptation to Mr. Aryan here, who was never discriminated in a job on the basis of his whiteness, straightness, or heterosexualness, and probably never imagined sexual assault could even happen to him. The murder is the only bit that’s at all equitable, and it’s still something people like him never really had to be concerned about.

      1. SpoonyViking says:
        And another good point.
  7. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
    ETHNIC VICTIM WOMAN (as written by a white guy)

    You know, just like Vivian James.

    I don’t see the connection. Woman is the only applicable word. She isn’t a mouthpiece, there are actual women for that.

    I know you must feel like you score a victory by bringing up her up but you appear like you don’t even know her actual background in game development.

    1. SoxyOutfoxing says:
      I know nothing about Vivian James but I do know that telling other people you “know” how they “must” feel is a really lousy thing to do.
    2. Ember says:
      She means the part where a fictional character is used to prove a point because no actual people of that demographic are willing to side with you.
      1. Farla says:
        The defense is there are actual people in the demographic willing to side with Gamergate.

        Just, you know, very very few. But they exist, and that proves Gamergate is pure equality.

        1. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
          You know, complaining that white men aren’t making enough minority/women stories in games may not be as productive getting more women and minorities in games.

          I would like to know where you get the “very very few”. Do you just imagine crowds of angry white men and use your imagination as proof that women are the exception?

          Also, I’m pretty this is the first time in history “Spite Donating” ever showed up. It’s like they are putting their money where their mouth is or something.

          1. Falconix says:
            That TFYC contest wasn’t going to get more women and minorities in games, though. At best, the winner would get a credit as idea people – which is as meaningful as the doodles some programmer makes on his lunch break.

            And if “spite voting” exists (and it does – see last month’s elections in the US, or most elections over in Mexico), then it was only a matter of time until “spite donating” was inventing.

            1. Falconix says:
              …invented. You know what I mean.
            2. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
              There is one thing you left out in both points, and that is money. Money is not some doodle. Do you not know there was a prize?

              TYFC: The idea is showing that women have good ideas and they need to speak up and act on those ideas. It’s a show by example.

              Spite Donating: a phrase that brings up this very page on Google. The existance of this term mean that they can walk the walk when all their opponents just talk the talk. Hasn’t it occurred to you that people can want good things?

              – see last month’s elections in the US-

              Low voter turnout. Democrats have not distinguished themselves.

              1. illhousen says:
                A problem there is that the ideas are cheap, and everyone who actually worked on creative projects knows it.

                For example, I am confident in saying that everyone here, yourself and the Gamergate anon included, can produce a few decent ideas for video games given sufficient motivation.

                Praising someone for it is incredibly patronizing. It’s basically saying “maybe you aren’t terminally stupid after all” and offering you a cookie for it.

                I guess it’s better than the usual treatment of women in the industry, but a contest that would actually involve women in the development process would be a better idea.

              2. Farla says:
                I think the game contest is a matter of there being competing issues.

                It’s presenting itself like it’s saying, “The problem is women are underrepresented in the games industry!” which is an issue of people being all LOLZ GURLS CANT CODE, so having a contest where women do the arty part of thinking up an idea and none of the coding doesn’t prove any of those people wrong, change any minds, or do anything to help women get their foot in the door. (This is the place Feminist Hacker Barbie comes from.)

                But there’s also a separate issue about a lack of female viewpoints in videogames because they rarely get to be listened to, let alone calling the shots, which leads to horrible portrayals and/or a general scarcity. Games thought up/written by women would be addressing this problem. It’d be more likely to produce the types of games other women say they’d like.

                It’s more sustainable to improve things so that more women have access to making videogames the way so many men do, but it’s also a lot more difficult. TFYC’s charity model is not a long-term solution, but it’s a more immediate one with definite results.

              3. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
                I have worked on creative projects and ideas are incredibility important. You have to work out which ideas are good and which ones are bad. Good ideas are worth a lot of money so and “ideas are cheap” is an notion contradicted by the entirety of human history.

                Praising someone for it is incredibly patronizing. It’s basically saying “maybe you aren’t terminally stupid after all” and offering you a cookie for it.

                Patronizing is extremely subjective. A couple of day ago, I passed a bunch of TV play a “girls can” commercial. There’s a lot of posters at my college say “don’t think women can be _____ engineers? Think again.” Compared to these, this contest isn’t nearly as patronizing.

                I’m not sure what the winner’s future involvement is, but I’m pretty there are a lot of women on the development team.

              4. illhousen says:
                It is my experience that good ideas with a potential for commercial success can be generated by dozens.

                It’s the execution that truly matters, the details and nuances.

                To have a good idea as a foundation is important, but nearly anyone can be the idea person.

                “Compared to these, this contest isn’t nearly as patronizing.”

                And compared to a punch in the face spitting is polite.

                “I’m not sure what the winner’s future involvement is, but I’m pretty there are a lot of women on the development team.”

                The stated goal of the contest is to increase the involvement of women in the gaming industry, though. It’s rather important for the winners to actually be involved with the project for that to work.

              5. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
                “And compared to a punch in the face spitting is polite.”

                Feminist celebrities talking about what girls can do is equivalent to punch someone in the face. Nice to know.

              6. illhousen says:
                *sigh* If you insist on intentionally misinterpret what I am saying, I don’t see a point to argue with you.

                The point was:

                “I guess it’s better than the usual treatment of women in the industry,
                but a contest that would actually involve women in the development
                process would be a better idea.”

          2. Farla says:
            Do you just imagine crowds of angry white men and use your imagination as proof that women are the exception?

            I use the part where I am female and generally aware of what groups exclude me. If you’re going to argue this is not mostly guys ironically using a couple #NotYourShield tweets to shield themselves from this fact, you’re going to need actual evidence.

            1. Septentrion Euchoreutes says:
              If you’re going to argue this is not mostly guys ironically using a couple #NotYourShield tweets
              to shield themselves from this fact, you’re going to need actual

              It’s attitudes like this that made a bunch of women post their faces in support of #NotYourShield. When minorities and women got tired of people “speaking for them” in defense of corruption, and then had the “you’re just a white man” argument used against them, of course they were going to start making pointing out that those stereotypes were wrong.

              You are one of those people intent on using stereotypes to make a point and trying to speak for an entire group. There are plenty of women who somehow didn’t noticed the exclusion barriers that you were so proudly stopped by.

              I’m sure there are some gaming groups that are exclusive, but most are not.

              Trying to paint an entire group with a label like “angry men” was the same trick the media used with OWS. OWS was turned into a bunch of unemployed weirdos when many of them were working multiple jobs in reality.

              1. Farla says:
                When minorities and women got tired of people “speaking for them”

                I’m speaking for me, because I am actually one of those female people. My opinion is not invalidated if you can find one other person who’s willing to agree with you, just as I don’t have to stop talking about any other feminist subject just because if you dredge the internet long enough you can find misogynst women.

                That the movement can view women speaking out against the abuse of other women as people appropriating women’s voices and think “not your shield” is a response that even makes sense is telling.

                As is your utter inability to actually given evidence it’s not mostly white guys, but that part was already well known. Pretending it’s otherwise simply to try to discredit the other side by any means necessary is where it gets slimy,

              2. SpoonyViking says:
                Wait, forgive the ignorance, but is the “not your shield” argument meant to be used against feminism?! Because it makes so much more sense to use it against mysoginists – you know, “don’t use me to claim most women actually agree with you assholes, I’m not your shield”.
              3. Falconix says:
                And that should be Clue #1 that #NotYourShield was created from a place of privilege, and yet…

                Strictly speaking, the hashtag is supposed to say that women and minorities do not allow extreme liberals and SJWs to speak for them. Which might be a fair point, if it wasn’t used when speaking out against a status quo that keeps those demographics poorly treated/presented… you know, like AAA videogames. Or that, in refusing to be the SJWs’ shield, they get used as a shield by the other side.

              4. actonthat says:
                From what I can gather, it started as a way for minorities to tell old white dudes to stop using them as chesspieces and then was co-opted by MRAs to tell women to stop talking about how women feel, because MRAs make all kinds of sense.
              5. Farla says:
                Here’s how it goes!

                Gamergate viciously attacks a woman.

                People speak out against those attacks and suggest the intensely misogynist content makes Gamergate misogynist.

                Gamergate attacks those people, mostly and most viciously the women.

                People speak out against those attacks and say the continued misogynist content and focus on only the women shows misogyny.

                Gamergate produces #NotYourShield where a couple women say that Gamergate hasn’t done anything to them, who agree with it, and this proves Gamergate isn’t mostly about tearing into any woman who disagrees with it. Also, other minorities chime in despite not even being Gamergate’s preferred demographic for attacking, either because even with the fake accounts they just didn’t have enough women or because Gamergate isn’t even trying to make sense and is just trying to pretend to be generally progressive. While this happens, Gamergate continues to insist most of the objections to Gamergate come from men white-knighting, because they’re immune to irony, who just want a chance at Zoe’s disgusting vagina and then go on for ten minutes speculating about how horrible her vagina is, because again, immune to irony.

              6. Falconix says:
                And for added irony and immunity to it: one of the more public female voices in favor of GG actually got doxxed and harassed for a minor disagreement with another public (male) voice of the movement. But she’s still Not Your Shield, feminazis.
              7. SpoonyViking says:
                Huh. Can you remember her name, Falconix?
              8. Falconix says:
                I think it was Liana K.
              9. SpoonyViking says:
                Thanks! :-)
              10. SpoonyViking says:
                …I see.
                Well, thanks for the explanation, Falconix, Act, Farla! :-)
    3. Farla says:
      She is literally a mouthpiece in that they draw comics of her saying their opinions.

      She was invented as their idea of what a nerdy girl like them would be, yes – illustrating in the process they have no idea how much actual work goes into girls looking pretty, because good god that is not the hair of a girl prioritizing videogames – to make them look less misogynist through spite-donating, and then promptly used as a mouthpiece/sex object thereafter (occasionally also used as a call to arms to attack any actual woman saying mean things about their fake daughter they keep drawing porn of).

  8. SoxyOutfoxing says:
    I really like how the interviewer says that he feels gender roles are more strictly enforced now than when he was a kid because he and his little sister played with Star Wars action figures together.

    Clearly this is a man who has reflected deeply upon the subject and whose experiences we should learn from. Gender roles were so much less of a problem back when no one ever mentioned them ever.

    1. Farla says:
      Also, what he really means it, “I love how back when my sister had no choice but to play with the boy figures or not get to play at all, she played with the boy figures. Why are all the adult women now complaining little girls don’t have girl figures to play with?”
  9. Y says:
    It seems like common sense that if you want to make your evil government evil, you don’t make them destroy crime and create full equality. Next they’ll cure all disease, those bastards!

    And also, Gamergate, the movement insisting that they aren’t about misogyny, reduced their female mascot to a sexual object. That stabs logic in the face.

    1. guestest ever says:
      Gamergate is the crowning jewel of internet. Equal opportunity shiteating at its finest, nobody involved deserves the slightest bit of goodwill and should all be taken out the back and shot.
      1. Falconix says:
        On the bright side, it seems like Gamergate is dying down as a movement.

        On the despair-inducing side, the members actively harassing women were already doing so for ages, and the movement gave the worst of them enough funds to keep at it for a good while longer, so…

        1. Farla says:
          At least this brought it to everyone else’s attention. A big problem has always been people dismissing women talking about this as that it can’t be that bad because they haven’t heard about this before. The more mainstream it gets, the more believable reality will be the next time around.
      2. Y says:
        But surely someone, somewhere, legitimately joined the movement out of frustration at game journalis-

        [looks at gamergate tumblr tag]

        Oh. Well that proves me wrong! Seriously, maybe 1% of it is actually about gaming journalism. Since I can’t figure out how to link to individual posts, I’m just going to mention a post I saw which was saying “Giving a shit about being oppressed = temper tantrum.”

        1. Farla says:
          I’m still hoping that at some point, someone will direct a tendril of Gamergate’s mass at any of the major developers. Literally any of them would be a valid target, and literally anything would be more than Gamergate’s doing about them now.

          Come on guys, it’s 2014, I know there’s at least a handful of women working on major games! You can find female targets that are at least tangentially related to this issue!

          1. Y says:
            I can remember hearing that Shadow of Mordor literally refused to give some people review copies unless they gave them positive reviews. Why Gamergate didn’t even bother to make a token scream at that is a point which really should have decapitated the movement by now.
  10. Ember says:
    Okay, this is a mess. But you know what’s not a mess? MOCKINGJAY PART I. :D I just saw it last night and it was fucking great. THEY SAVED EFFIE, FARLA. :D
  11. Zephyr says:
    So in the wake of all this terrible COMICS stuff, I found this interview, which is pretty cool and interesting even if it is a few years old now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar